The implementation matters more than the DAC chip IMHO. . Apologies for OT.

I realize that. And it is indeed a misleading conclusion on my part. The thing is, I felt the sound was on the thinner side so I told myself I'd stay away from the Sabre. I've since been reading about how the implementation matters so I could be wrong. But if you read the information on the Audio GD site, there is always this statement that if one prefers a slightly warmer sound, one should opt for the WM chips.

I had a go with iBasso DX90 DoP -> HUGO -> LCD-XC. (since I have HUGO)

Yes, its audio heaven.

After which I tried other (Grado GS, HD800..etc), i threw them back, thinking I need to reset my brains (and ears) a bit before listening to others. It is just not as "forward" in your face, and dynamic as the LCD-XC.

Than I tried LCD-X.....

XC has much better bass response on HUGO than X.

However, X has a very beautiful tingle and sweetness to the highs. It is very hypnotising. For bass, X has some missing parts, but not so much as to make a huge diff from XC.

So I've heard from someone that the LCD-XC is a 90%-as-good version of an LCD-X. They explained that it's basically an LCD-X, with a back on it, which is why it is just slightly dearer than an LCD-X (to cover the cost of the bubingas), but by closing it in, you lose a bit of quality/detail/whatever in the process, and that they are just trying to cater for the closed headphone market. That's why it's called an LCD-XC, not an LCD-C - indicating that it's a closed LCD-X, not an entirely different product.

Would like to hear people's opinion on this matter - weather they agree or weather they think it should have maybe been called the LCD-C because it's just as different from the other Audeze 'phones as the LCD 2, 3 and X. Is people's main reason for buying the XC the fact that they're closed, or are they your genuine favourite from the Audeze lineup.

So I've heard from someone that the LCD-XC is a 90%-as-good version of an LCD-X. They explained that it's basically an LCD-X, with a back on it, which is why it is just slightly dearer than an LCD-X (to cover the cost of the bubingas), but by closing it in, you lose a bit of quality/detail/whatever in the process, and that they are just trying to cater for the closed headphone market. That's why it's called an LCD-XC, not an LCD-C - indicating that it's a closed LCD-X, not an entirely different product.

Would like to hear people's opinion on this matter - weather they agree or weather they think it should have maybe been called the LCD-C because it's just as different from the other Audeze 'phones as the LCD 2, 3 and X. Is people's main reason for buying the XC the fact that they're closed, or are they your genuine favourite from the Audeze lineup.

I had the 2.2, and now have the 3 and the XC. To me each offered something slightly different. The 2.2 was more about slam, the 3 to me is the most neutral of the, well, 3 cans, and the XC offers the right combination of bass, that good-to-die for midrange and smooth top end. Isolation is not an issue for me as I don't use the XC outside of the house.